Posted
by
samzenpuson Thursday October 01, 2009 @07:57AM
from the just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe dept.

angry tapir writes "Jack Thompson has sued Facebook for US$40 million, saying that the social networking site harmed him by not removing angry postings made by Facebook gamers. The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Thompson is best known for bringing suit against Grand Theft Auto's Take Two Interactive, Sony Computer Entertainment America, and Wal-Mart, arguing that the game caused violent behavior."

The Florida Supreme Court already did. He's pretty harmless these days. All he can do now are "give me attention" tricks. Like this Facebook thing. Anyone with a half an ounce of sense knows it's not going anywhere. He's more like a Jack Thompson caricature these days.

As for me, I think these little public humiliations he sets himself up for are endlessly entertaining. It's fascinating to know that this guy was a lawyer at one time when he obviously knows very very little about what's legal and what isn't.

Slashdot (and the gaming media in general) are doing a fantastic job feeding his narcissism just by reporting on every frivolous lawsuit. He's just a really skilled troll, and everyone always falls for him.

(Of course, if we ignored him, he'd probably go away only to be replaced by an anti-gaming figurehead that wasn't batshit fucking insane, so maybe it's best for everyone to just keep him around for the amusement factor.)

I would have to disagree, a troll is aware of his/her trolling, it is intentional.Jack is like a troll, except for the fact that he is dead serious, and there is no "lol, trolled".He really would restrict your rights and regulate the hell out of video games and therest of the online world that in his eyes is destroying the morals of America.

I would have to disagree, a troll is aware of his/her trolling, it is intentional.
Jack is like a troll, except for the fact that he is dead serious, and there is no "lol, trolled".

On usenet, the distinction is made between a "troll", and a "netkook"; their behavior is often strikingly similar, except that the former is doing it intentionally to incite reponses, whereas the latter actually believes what he's saying.

I would have to disagree, a troll is aware of his/her trolling, it is intentional.
Jack is like a troll, except for the fact that he is dead serious, and there is no "lol, trolled".

On usenet, the distinction is made between a "troll", and a "netkook"; their behavior is often strikingly similar, except that the former is doing it intentionally to incite reponses, whereas the latter actually believes what he's saying.

Jack, I gather, is more of a kook than a troll...

Right. People think of the term "troll" as referring to some sort of monster, like the ones beneath the bridge in the story about the billy goats. But "trolling" is actually an old word for fishing by dragging a line with a baited hook or hooks behind a slow-moving boat. You can see how the older definition applies...

Why, there were quite a few founding fathers that didn't want slavery. In fact, it seems that the original drafts of the constitution banned slavery and had to be changed in order to get a few of the southern states on board. They compromised by placing the ability to ban imports of slaves and to tax their possession and make slave ownership and sales impractical in the future.

The act of slavery is irrelevant to someone pulling out a founding fathers argument. It's like Criticizing Obama's health care plan or foreign policy because he never rode a Farris Wheel.

It was a value decision. Or should I say valuable decision. Without it, the US wouldn't have come together and history as we know it would have been completely different with perhaps slavery existing in it to this day. Values such as the freedom of speech that allowed abolitionist to convince people on the ending of slavery wouldn't have existed as the newly formed states may not have ever pact together or if they did, the union would have been much weaker.

Most of the rest of the modern world had outlawed slavery in their main countries with their insular possessions coming soon after about the same as the US walked into the civil war. Even while England had banned slavery by the 1700's, it was allowed in their colonies like India and places in Africa. Africa still has parts that allow slavery to this day.

It's the fault of the church. The original corrupting influence was theatre, and the church knew this, but none the less allowed plays providing they were on religious themes, but before you know it you've got Shakespeare writing about all kinds of crazy secular shit, and eventually theatres allowed in the city, and the final nail in the coffin of morality, allowing female roles to be played by actually female actors. Everything after that in the collapse of morality is postscript.

Well, the common moral framework has been destroyed and re-created over that period of time, more than once in some cases. Look at how we feel about "bastards" (born out of wedlock), or the "N-word" (which used to be part of childrens' rhymes). Look at the content of tv (now radio/internet) programming, it's totally different. Objectively, I do think it is fai

Bullshit. One colony out of fifteen was founded by Puritans. Virginia was already doing quite well by the time those idiots landed in Massachusetts and damn near starved themselves to death with their idiotic collective farming scheme.

This mythology of the Puritans "founding the country" is progressive-era propaganda.

First off... 15 colonies? only 13 founded our country. what are the other two you are talking of?

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Neither were part of the 13 Colonies (obviously), but both were early British colonies. IIRC, there were attempts early in the Revolutionary War to agitate Nova Scotia (which then bordered with Maine) against the crown, but the mostly military and loyalist population of the colony shrugged them off.

Prayer is not banned in school. Kids can pray all they want. Government-forced prayer is banned in school. For some reason that gets conservatives so mad you would think they were about to bust an artery.

The criminal charges, of which they were acquitted, were for contempt of a court order, not for blessing the meal. They were at a luncheon (not a dinner) on school property and had obviously done it in the past since a court had told them they couldn't do it anymore. And yet they did it anyway. And someone had to have complained on both occasions or the ACLU would have never known about it. That's hardly the situation you described.

Also, if you read more, you'd know the difference between the pledge of allegiance and the pledge of elegance. I'm not sure I've ever heard of the pledge of elegance, but it sounds like it would be making students pledge to wear ball gowns and tuxedos to school which seems like a stupid idea. I'd also venture that we'd be doing away with the pledge of allegiance regardless of it's references to God. Blind allegiance to the state is the stuff of fascist and communist governments, not supposedly free countries like the US. Students shouldn't feel forced to support their country any more than they should feel forced to believe in a religion.

And Christians are so quick to believe that Christmas is such an innocuous subject and yet would be up in arms if the school play or carols dealt with another religion. They don't want to see a school play depicting the miracle of the lamp oil that should have lasted only 1 night but lasted 8 nights (the basis for Chanukah) and they don't want their kids learning songs about dradles. Why should students and parents from other religions be forced to see plays and sing songs about Christmas when they're not allowed to see plays and sing songs about their own religion?

There's a good reason why the rules about separation of church and state are in place. Without them, state officials who are religious can and would use their authority to push their religion onto others. Christians don't get the benefit of the doubt for the same reason that Microsoft doesn't get the benefit of the doubt...they have a long history that indicates exactly what they'd do if not controlled. And laws cannot be applied selectively or there would be chaos. So we have to balance the occasions where something that seems innocuous isn't allowed against the occasions where something oppressive is allowed when creating laws.

What is fucking ridiculous is that we have to keep fighting this battle with Christians over and over again since they can't seem to practice their religion on their own time and in their own homes and facilities. If you want religion in schools, go to a non-secular private school.

For the Obama song thing, that was probably across the line, unless it was an entirely optional student pushed thing, with no faculty or staff involvement aside from offering resources like the camera. Given the age of the kids (which makes that seem unlikely), I'm hoping there are some lawsuits over it.

As for "flagpole days", so long as it's clear that any faculty or staff involved are not acting on behalf of the school (as in teachers involved in the

X (where X is a country more than two hundred years old) never had any morals. It was built on pillage and destruction of existing culture and then on slavery to bootstrap a new economy.

Fixed that for you (both the semantics and the syntax). Every country on the planet was built by the "winners," who almost always displaced prior inhabitants. Virtually every country (less than a couple hundred years old anyway) featured slavery (or a closely related form of cheap labor extracted involuntarily) at some point. No, that doesn't make it right, but as Dr. King said "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice." We aren't perfect, but at least we seem to be getting better.

I find this lawsuit fairly amusing and hypocritical; since Thompson himself claimed First Amendment protection [law.com] against his critics, and then when for good measure that the criticism of him violated state religious protection laws since he was motivated by his faith.

Mister Thompson wasn't damaged by "angry postings made by Facebook gamers" he was damaged by all the stupid, unethical (and illegal) crap he did that spawned those posts. This is just a greedy lawyer who got himself disbarred through his own machinations trying to get himself a payout so he can finance his insidious campaign of ignorance and fear. Hope Facebook takes this to court and tear Mister Thompson a proverbial "new one".

I would caution you about references to the Bush II era VP. The others are fine, and I agree with them, but Cheney is like Dracula/Chuckie/Freddie and Jason combined, except with all the nice parts removed and extra evil installed. You'd would not be sued by him, but he might eat your still quivering heart while playing cat's cradle with your entrails.

Most of the mentally ill in the US have no insurance (because it's damned hard to get a job with clinical depression, bipolar disorder or schitzophrenia) and can't get professional help. Why would you give a monster like him the help a poor homeless schitzo can't?

Besides, I don't think they have any effective treatments for sociopathy yet.

In the UK the courts can declare somebody a vexatious litigant which requires them to apply to the court for leave to make an application to the court. Is there something similar in the US?

And for the inevitable posts that berate the UK and make reference to CCTV, libel law etc. etc., the list [hmcourts-service.gov.uk] of vexatious litigants is quite small and made up of people entirely like Mr Thompson who are, "batshit fucking insane". I know because I had to deal with one of the people on the list - a full weight cock-jockey of the first order. That list of people could bring any country to its knees.

but get him off the streets before he costs someone else another million dollars to defend against his criminal actions.

It's unfortunate, but filing harrasing lawsuits is one of the few crimes people in prison can commit on those outside of it.

Personally, I think this shows just why Jack was disbarred - a blatant, persistent disregard for any laws that don't say what he wants them to say.

In this case, while I'm not a lawyer, I know that angry letters can be submitted to a newspaper and published without consequence - they can be angry in tone as long as they don't pass into libel.

A facebook page is just another point of distribution, with a lower cost of entry so the editorial controls are lowered. In some ways, it can even be considered self-publishing - at which point as long as you avoid libel/slander you're supposed to be protected under the 1st ammendment.

Jack is a legally trained lawyer, even if he's been banned for malpractice. He should realize this.

I've had an idea for types like this - at some point you award anybody they sue in an asshat way all their legal fees, lost wages, etc... Be generous. Until they're paid off they can't sue anybody else.

The slight loss of justice for them* would be outweighed by the increase in justice for everybody else.

*IE a construction company could 'accidentally' knock down their house, shrug and say *so sue me* and the asshat *couldn't*, not until he's paid all his court mandated settlements off.

I agree completely with you that Facebook didn't make people hate him...his own actions did. Unfortunately Jack Thompson might (for once) have something on his side since he's complaining that Facebook didn't remove the hate groups against him (like the now removed "i'll pay someone $50 for a video of you punching Jack Thompson in the face" post) but removed a poll of "Should Obama be shot." I don't think it's unreasonable he found a lawyer to help him on this one.

I don't think it's unreasonable he found a lawyer to help him on this one.

Legally speaking, there may be some leeway there. But what kind of lawyer would take on a borderline frivolous case filed by a man disbarred for bad practice including, but not limited to, the malicious use of frivolous lawsuits? Any reasonable lawyer would need a rock solid case before they'd touch that, given the nature of their client, and his history.

With that in mind, it may not be unreasonable for him to have found a lawyer, but there's a better than even chance he's hired an unreasonable lawyer.

I agree completely with you that Facebook didn't make people hate him...his own actions did. Unfortunately Jack Thompson might (for once) have something on his side since he's complaining that Facebook didn't remove the hate groups against him (like the now removed "i'll pay someone $50 for a video of you punching Jack Thompson in the face" post) but removed a poll of "Should Obama be shot." I don't think it's unreasonable he found a lawyer to help him on this one.

Excuse my european ignorance for not understanding. But is it illegal to hate people in the US? If not, is it illegal to form groups sharing the same hate? Please before anybody answers, I'm not referring to hate crimes, which infact doesn't tend to be about the hate, but rather what actions people have taken against eachother. Basically I understand that shouting "nigger" and hitting a black person is illegal, but is it illegal to tell that same person: "I hate you. Infact I've formed a group and we all ha

When I was in high school, some dumbasses learned how to send email "anonymously" through like, hotmail or something like that. They sent a threatening letter to Socks. Yes, that Socks. The Clinton's cat. Secret Service showed up a couple days later to have a very long chat with them... I'm not sure of all the details, but I believe they weren't allowed to use computers at school for at least the rest of the year, and were very close to going to jail.

I'm not sure the US operates on a "loser (almost) always pays" system.

The theory is that by not having such a system, it's harder for the big guy to steamroller the little guy by saying "You do realise if you carry on we will apply for costs, and our costs so far have been $X hundred thousand?".

So instead what happens is they've got a fantastically complicated system whereby the big guy can keep going back to court until the little guy can no longer afford representation in court.

That's not to say there's no protection for the little guy exactly: the judge has the option of awarding the victorious party attorney's fees, and a lot of judges are willing to give that out if the losing side appears to have been taking advantage of the fact that lawsuits cost money.

The trouble is that the little guy might have already been driven broke by the attorney's fees before that award can occur, and if the big guy doesn't pay might not even be able to move for contempt. So it's not a perfect reme

I don't think a "loser always pays" system is the best, but I think that the plaintiff should be heavily penalized if the lawsuit is determined to be frivolous by a jury of his/her peers. There is a big difference between filing a losing lawsuit, and using the court system as a personal vendetta machine. If it is found that any particular lawsuit was frivolous, the plaintiff should be obligated to repay the defendant any court costs incurred, any lost wages, and punitive damages (the amount to be determined

I really hope this Lawsuit is thrown out, simply because people are entitle to their opinions of this guy and what he stands for. He seems to forget that he's on some sort of one man crusade to fight computer game industry, and puts himself out there ans is not ready to be scrutinized for what he believes in. These individuals are using the tools provided to them to voice their opinions. We still have that right to free speech. I have not read these posts, and nor do I want to, thus the beauty of the Net. Now that Mr. Thompson has advertised that these posts exists, he's drawing national attention to them and may find that more people agree with the angry posts rather than his points.

I don't necessarily agree with vial and viscious things but people will do what people will do.

Angry comments by gamers on Facebook? Gamers, get over it. The man's just a litigious nut who hasn't got anything successfully banned in the United States. Saying bad stuff about him only gives him more ammo to criticize and sue companies with. Don't worry, Jack Thompson isn't going to get between you and Grand Theft Auto 19 or Halo X Spin-off.

You can sue for any amount you like here, pretty much, however getting it is another matter. Depending upon jurisdiction you might have to prove the damages or get some judicial buy in on that and some amounts are so large as to be unconstitutional. Then there's the part about actually collecting, which isn't necessarily easy as some types of wealth and income can't be garnished. That's who OJ was living such a lavish lifestyle up until his arrest and subsequent conviction.

"Oh, I know what I'll do! I'll beat the tar out of him! NO! Better! I'll post an angry message to his facebook page! Why, he'll be so upset he'll start to cry! That's way better than beating the tar out of him!"

Jack Thompson should be disbarred. His lawsuits are nothing but frivelous and a waste of tax payer money. He must have blown all his money that he earned from his tv show and now needs to keep filing idiotic lawsuits in hte hopes to make money for his ridiculous lifestyle. This guy should be disbarred and then he should be exiled from our country.

"Thompson may petition the Court, but may do so only through the assistance of counsel, whenever such counsel determines that the filing has merit and can be filed in good faith. However, Thompsons frivolous and abusive filings must immediately come to an end. Further, if Thompson submits a filing in violation of this order, he may be subjected to contempt proceedings or other appropriate sanctions. All other pending petitions, motions, and requests for relief filed by Thompson are hereby denied without prejudice."

After reading that Court Order, I must say that this man needs professional help. No, I am not talking about legal help. The examples provided by the Court are very convincing.

"The act of persistently instigating lawsuits, often groundless ones."

It's a crime. If anyone was seriously threatened by one of these, they could simply file charges. Facebook is already protected by the law per TFA, as Thompson should be well aware. Being aware and persisting makes it all the more likely he'd be convicted of this, and in each case receive greater fines and/or jail time.